Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
with some of my republican friends is that we'rewe all want to fix the deficit problem. there is no question. but i think, when they have a chance to look at this bill and understand what we're really facing, i don't think we will have a problem. >> how is this different from the proposal from a year ago? >> did we have a pay freeze a year ago? [laughter] >> it is different. the house had the attrition of the workforce that is in this component. we had a combination -- instead of every three positions that came open. we had two. and a combination of overall across the federal government over a year. this is different here it combines both so we're on the same page. and we have the house proposal on nutrition and we added congressional pay freeze on it. >> what makes you think this time around that the senate majority leader will take up this proposal? >> i would certainly defer to the chairman, but there is a real urgency here. one of the reasons that the president and the administration, during this campaign, didn't want the actual warrant act, the law that requires to notify workers that t
'll be following this. >>> to washington now. members of congress remain focused on deficits, spending and how to head off the looming sequestration cuts poised to kick in early next month. in separate interviews on sunday, house minority leader nancy pelosi and majority leader eric cantor laid out the economic dividing lines. >> what we need is growth. we need growth with jobs. and if you have spending cuts, education of our children and other investments like the national institutes of health where you are hindering growth, you're not going to reduce the deficit. so it is almost a false argument to say we have a spending problem. we have a budget deficit problem that we have to address. we think the deficit and the national debt are at immoral levels. we think they must be reduced. we're sick and tired of paying interest on the national debt. and that's 15% -- that's a large percentage of the budget. >> the tax fight for the president means higher taxes, more revenue. again, we can't be raising taxes every three months in this town, david. and you know, the bottom line is we want tax reform,
the deficit. all by honoring the wish of 2/3 of americans to respect states' rights for marijuana just like we do for alcohol. i would invite my colleagues to join this effort in developing a marijuana policy that makes sense for america today. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. coble, for five minutes. mr. coble: i thank the speaker. mr. speaker, january is the traditional month in which new year's resolutions are developed. i'm suggesting that president obama and mrs. boim adopt a resolution -- mrs. obama adopt a resolution. it appears to me, mr. speaker, regard air force one very casually and i believe on some occasions two planes, at least two planes go to the same destination. air force one, mr. speaker, belongs to president and mrs. obama. but air force one also belongs to the american taxpayer. and i would welcome a new year's resolution that would provide generous lace of all future air force one dispatches with prudence, discipline and last but certainly not least fiscal austerity. america's taxpayers will be
such as the deficit, guns, or health care. the white house has certainly gotten the message on jobs and isn't waiting until tomorrow night to start getting its message out before the inevitable republican attacks start raining down. take a listen. >> you will hear in the president's state of the union an outline from him for his plan to create jobs and grow the middle class. the middle class is the engine that drives this country forward and which will, if it is given the right tools and the right opportunities, will drive us forward in the 21st century. >> let's get to our guest, democratic strategist bob shrum, and karen finney. the president is expected to use the speech as a way to frame the debate over the so-called sequester which would mean $85 billion in cuts that republicans claim are entirely his fault. take a listen to this. >> you know, the president, he's the one who proposed the sequester in the first place. >> it's what president obama proposed in 2011. >> it is inevitable quite frankly. now these cuts are coming by law and it's law the president signed and advocated. >> okay, professo
away. right? >> right. >> but republicans got to the brink and caved on the deficit ceiling. they got to the brink and they caved on sequester the first round. now, sequester comes back and still with the budget. and and they are saying, no, no, no. they are saying again that we are never going to agree with this unless we get major, major spending cuts and social security and welfare but can we believe him anymore? i mean it looks to me at the same time like they will get to the brink again and realize, no, no, no. we can't do this. if we look at recent history, that would be the course. what's fascinating is the republicans see this as the major bargaining chip to get their desired spending cuts but if we remember from their campaign last fall we saw mitt romney and paul rind on trying to avert the sequester saying this would be a really bad thing, you know, especially for defense. now, we kind of see a reverse here john boehner has said that he does not support a delay which the president wants, which the president outlined last week. so t
. >> no. no. well the first of the year on the fiscal cliff. on the deficit. then they caved, once they came back. right? on the budget and extended things again. isn't it likely no matter their bluff, they are going to cave on the sequester as well? >> we will see what happens. on top republicans are set to unveil their package with sec wrestration and they are likely to introduce a plan to pay for a year's worth of sequester cuts, a year reduction in the federal work force through attrition, not people losing their jobs but that's what they are set to unveil. >> that's kelly ayott, the chair of the house armed services committee and reveal an alternate plan and say what president obama suggested is dead on arrival in the house, not going to make it through congress >> bill: but they will come up with their own plan? >> they will later this afternoon. >> juan aa summers reporter for politico pro the paid addition? >> we are behind the pay wall but i pop up on the main site to cause trouble. >> defense related issues chuck hagel's nomination sequester,
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)